Daily Republican., 1887-12-15
SUPERIOR COURT.
A Verdict for tho Pia,nur In the Case OF
CHARLES Perkes vs. Peter j Ford-Ths
Oass of George n. OFT vs spsoht i
spain on Trial

A Verdict for the PlaintiT In the Case OF
CHARLES Perkes vs. Peter j Ford-rhs
Oass of George n. OFT vs. spsoht i
spaha on Trial.
Superior Court reconvened at 3 O'Clock
yesterday afternoon with the Judges
present.
The case OF Charles Perkes VS.. Peter
j. Ford was resum cd. Several witnesses
were sxsnined for the plaintiff, but
their evidence did not differ from that
given ut the morning session. Mr. Hot
fecker announced that he would rest
his case. and Walter Hayes. Esq, open
ed for the defense.
Peter j. Ford testified that he had not
70, eivod any word from Perkes that he
had shipped goods TO Walsh & Bon on
his guarantee. It was over two years
after he signed the contract before be
received any notice that goods had been
shipped on the strength Of the contract.
On cross examination. he admitted
that In 1885 be had, after being notified
By Mr.. HOfecher, tod him that he
would belp him to get this money from
Walsh g. Son.
William Walsh was sworn, and testi.
hed that he was one of the Arm Of
Walsh & Son. He thought that he had
bought fully g. 600 worth Of goods from
Mr.. Perkes. He had dor from 5000 to
81 eco worth OF worG for Mr. Ford after
the contract WAS signed. The irm Of
Walsh e. Soa was dissolved about two
years ago.
Mr.. Hay az said that he would rest
his case with this witness Mr.. Hof
fecker made q brief opening fur the
plaintiff and was followed by Mr..
Hayes for the defendant Mr.. Johnsou
made the concluding argument to tho
Jury for the defense and closed a. 10
O'Clock.
The closir armament for the plslntiff
WAS made by J. II. Hoffecker, Esq ,
after which the jury MAS charged by
the ChistJo.tioe
He said thst according to the con-
tract, Ford had become auswerabie T.
the plaintiff for the dent OF Walsh &
Sop, providsd the amount did not ex
csea $500. The law however requires
that the one entering on contract OF
this kind shall be notified Of Its accept
ance, and 1t also T. q hires that the guar
autor shall be DotItied fiom time 10
Anne of how the account stands. IL
she aympnts axe not made promptly,
tnd the account should be closed, the
te Her must notify the gusrantor. 80
that bs could take proper steps to pro-
'ect himself. In th,s case II seems that
Ford was notified Immediately after the
account WAS close1, and IL The jury DO
llteve this, they must render verdict
for the plaintiff. but /! not, they will
have 10 tind for the dei6udaus.
The jury retired at 4.39 O'Clock, and
returned in fifteen minutes with a yer
dict in favor OF the plaintiff for e226 81,
being the full amount OF his eiain.
| A Jury was draSn to try the case OF
George n. OFT vs.. Spscdt ~ Spain, with
E G. Bradford and Lewis O. Vsnde-
grift, Esq. for tho plaintiff, ard Btnjs
min Nields and HoHscSer St II HsiieokeT,
Esqs,, for the defendants.
| Thls IL an action for unlawful deter =
ton OF goo Is and chs,tes a. the Excel
sior Bre very. On February ID, 1898,
George d. OFT, the plaintiff. entered into
a contract with Karl BpBcnt aud Adam
Spain to furnish them with copper
boilers and other machinery, and thsy
on their part we're 10 nay him tEOo OF
February 2S, 1855; $500 May IS, 1883;
$500 June 2s, 1888; $40 July %, 1898
and $500 August 25 Of the same year.
This money wac for the L SO OF these
articles; and It was further asked that
il specht & SPAIN complied with this
az -eement, the machinery was to De
valued in August, and sod to them
with the amount paid ioT rent dehucied
Ii is alleged that of thts $500 hat SsUU
was paid and mat when tae p.ainttb'
| in accord apce with the agreement. went
10 demand his goods he was repellec
with threats, and the Roodsetis r-mSin
| in Tue custody OF Speech. g. Spain, G;
their assiRnee5.
The case was cpeued to the jury by
Mr.. Vandeerlft, after which he offered
the contract in evidence, and also q
wilt OF repleviu that was taken out. ss
we'll as the property toId, which wat
given for the purpose OF retaining pos
session. of the goods. After reading the
contract no commenced the e1amiha
ton OF witu6sses.
George z, OFT wAs afi rmcd and tesu
fled that hs IL manufacturer or cop
DOR, brass and Iron WORK. he fur
nished machinery and sct " up a.
Speohr. g. SDabn's brewery at F;fih and
DUP ort streets. The value OF this ma
chinery WAS bet wesn 81 Geo And ", .tU
and he has never tesn paid jor IL, but
has received $500 ou account for the ust
oft Specht & Spahn have not made
the pey menin as agreed to In the con
traot. When some Of the payments feii
due the witness ~ce sick IN Euiope.
but he lad given HE brother power OF
attorney TO attend to his business.
The witness was still on the etsru NJ
derQoing cross-examiDaiion by MI.
Nields when court took "a receFs ~
O'Clock until ~ O'Clock this morning.
During the afternoon an inqnlsiiion
as held IN the Law Library room IL
the case of Mathew Semp.o i 20 vs.
Peter =. Wynooop and Robert U Wyh-
coop, In which Judgment for the pam
Jft. of 81 lag 81 was confirmed.
| ni.a. And rlantu Of Ii mnst be had